Scott's Journal

Alright.So, I’ve done this once before in an article for Low Five so it might feel like this comes around more often than I say it does, but I promise that this is just a coincidence. Here now, for only the second time in a year, I say to you all: I was wrong about a thing.In my last “Scott Talks Wrestling” article (and in the Title Hunt podcast, which you’ll eventually hear) I called Survivor Series, among other things, a clusterfuck, a mess, and a literal dumpster fire, saying that the show was all but guaranteed to be a miserable nightmare. And now that it’s over, I can say without a shred of irony or sarcasm that Survivor Series 2016 was easily the best pay per view of the last six months, and very likely the best pay per view of the year. With only two PPVs left (December’s TLC and Roadblock) I’m fairly confident that Survivor Series will be the tentpole on which 2016 is remembered. So, as long as we’re backpedaling at the speed of sound here, let’s just get right into the specifics of the things that I was wrong about:

Warning: This article is slightly NSFW. So, guys, I have a secret to share with all of you: I fucking love terrible erotica.

Reading awful erotica is like eating an entire bag of potato chips to me. I love contrived plots, I love bad sex scenes in improbable situations, and a book gets bonus points if the scene itself doesn’t make any biological sense. If the act is either physically impossible or allows for no sexual pleasure whatsoever then I am absolutely joyful when I read it. Astute listeners of the Hit Continue podcast could correctly guess that this is a large reason why I continue to watch ABC’s Quantico.

So, there’s this very famous play/movie called Twelve Angry Men. In it, a jury has just finished listening to the cases made by the prosecution and defense presiding over a murder, and they’ve been excused to deliberate on whether the defendant should be declared guilty or innocent. What happens next is something that jurors are not allowed to do:

The titular twelve angry men take a look at all of the evidence and go over all of the things that have been said and over the course of a short play they come to a series of completely different conclusions than either the defense or the prosecution. Effectively, what they do is they, while locked away in a room, investigate a case that none of them were witnesses to. For example, the lead in the play (“Juror 8”) claims that it would have been impossible for one of the witnesses to have heard the defendant say “I’m going to kill you” because there would have been too much noise happening from a passing train, which is speculation. Juror 8 also brings in outside evidence (in the form of a replica switchblade) and does his own research on the case outside of what is presented to him in the courtroom. These things normally would lead to a mistrial and restarting jury selection.